JUDGMENT : Bipin Chander Negi, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09.09.2022 passed by Ld. District Judge-III, Kangra at Dharamshala, Camp at Baijnath, District Kangra in Civil Appeal No.23-B/2018. Vide said judgment, the Appellate Court has upheld the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Baijnath, District Kangra, HP in Civil Suit No. 44/2013, titled Ranjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Bhawani Parshad & Anr. 2. The present appellants were the defendants/appellants before the trial Court. The facts leading up to the present appeal are that the present respondents/plaintiffs before the trial Court filed a suit seeking a declaration that they are owners in possession of a 4/5 th share of the tenancy land comprised in Khata No.42, Khatauni No. 107, Khasra Nos. 142, 145, 149, and 169, Kitas-4, ad-measuring 0-28-41 hectares, situated in Mohal Kothi, Mauza Paprola, Tehsil Baijnath, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, as per the Jamabandi for the year 2008-09 (referred to as the "suit land"). They also sought a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from dispossessing them or altering the nature of the land, and for possession as co-sharers, if the defendants/appellants succeeded in dispossessing them based on wrong entries in the revenue records. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed that the defendants/appellants were non-occupancy tenants to the extent of a 1/5 th share in the suit land. 3. The plaintiffs/respondents averred that Tehku Ram, the common predecessor-in-interest of both parties, was recorded as a Gair Marusi tenant in possession of the suit land in the Jamabandi for 1968-69. They alleged that during the settlement, the father of the defendants/appellants, Baragi Ram (brother of the plaintiffs/respondents), wrongfully got his name recorded in place of Tehku Ram, excluding the plaintiffs/respondents. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed they had been in continuous cultivating possession as non-occupancy tenants with a 4/5th share but were omitted from the revenue records. They stated that, as per the Jamabandi for 2008-09, only the defendants/appellants, along with Ramesh Chand and Kubza Devi (since deceased, leaving behind the defendants/appellants as legal heirs), were shown in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed they became aware of the wrongful entries in May 2011 when the defendants/appellants threatened to dispossess them and started interfering with their possession. 4. The plaintiffs/respondents claimed they became aware of the wrongful entries in May 2011 when the defendants/appellants threatened to dispossess them and started interfering with their possession. 4. The defendants/appellants contested the suit by filing a written statement, raising preliminary objections on grounds of maintainability, estoppel, valuation, cause of action, unclean hands, suppression of material facts, non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties, limitation, and jurisdiction. On merits, the defendants/appellants submitted that their father, Baragi Ram, was the sole cultivator of the suit land under the ownership of Pratool Chand and Jagtamba Prashad, sons of Shri Hiru, before the settlement. Baragi Ram alone paid rent/Galla Batai to the landowners, and after his death, the defendants/appellants continued to do so. They relied on the Fasal Girdawari for 1995 to Ravi 1999 to show their father’s possession. The defendants/appellants also argued that the original landowners were not made parties to the suit, rendering it bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. They prayed for the dismissal of the suit with costs. 5. Replication to the written statement was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, wherein the contents of the plaint were reiterated and re-asserted and those of the written statement were denied and refuted. Out of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 27.08.2013 by the learned trial court:- 1. Whether the revenue entries of the suit land depicting the defendants/appellants as 'Gair Marusi Tenants' in the possessory column are incorrect, wrong, illegal and void and are liable to be declared so, as alleged ? OPP. 2. Whether the act of deletion of the names of the plaintiffs/respondents in 'missal haquiat bandobast' is liable to be corrected, if so, its effect? OPP. 3. Whether the deletion of the names from the column of possession of the plaintiffs/respondents as non- occupancy tenant is without any order of competent authority and liable to be declared so, as alleged ? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are in continues cultivating physical possession of the suit land up to the extent of 4/5 share and liable to be declared so, as alleged ? OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to the relief of declaration, as prayed for ? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 7. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to the relief of possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 8. OPP. 5. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to the relief of declaration, as prayed for ? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction, as prayed for? OPP. 7. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are entitled to the relief of possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP. 8. Whether the suit is not maintainable in present form? OPD. 9. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents have no cause of action and locus standi to file the present suit? OPD. 10. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents are estopped by their act and conduct from filing the present suit? OPD. 11. Whether the suit is bad for non and mis joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPD. 12. Whether the plaintiffs/respondents have not approached this court with clean hands, as alleged? OPD. 13. Whether the suit is improperly valued, as alleged? OPD. 14. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD. 15. Whether the suit is barred by limitation, as alleged? OPD. 16. Whether the father of defendant, namely, Baragi was in cultivating possession of the suit land even prior to the settlement and the defendants/appellants are in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPD. 17. Relief. 6. The parties led their evidence and on conclusion of the evidence and after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, the learned trial Court decided the Issues No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents and issue Nos. 7 to 16 were decided against the defendants/appellants and consequently, the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents was decreed. 7. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants/defendants had assailed the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. 8. The Appellate Court on an entire analysis of the pleadings, evidence upheld the judgement of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. 9. Heard counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and perused the impugned judgments. 10. The predecessor-in-interest of both the appellant/defendant and respondent/plaintiff i.e. Tehku was the original tenant under Pratul and Jagtamba over the suit land. Tehku died on 05.03.1971, his successors in interest i.e. Baragi, Ranjit, Lachhman, Khemraj and Krishan became owners in the year 1975, when rights were conferred upon them by virtue of Section 104(3) of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in equal share. Tehku died on 05.03.1971, his successors in interest i.e. Baragi, Ranjit, Lachhman, Khemraj and Krishan became owners in the year 1975, when rights were conferred upon them by virtue of Section 104(3) of the HP Tenancy and Land Reforms Act in equal share. Nothing has been brought on record to show as to how Baragi became the sole tenant in place of all the legal heirs of Tehku. Besides the aforesaid, Baragi did not place on record any document to prove that he had been Inducted as the original tenant by the hitherto owners Pratul and Jagtamba. Other than the aforesaid, no material was placed on record to show that Baragi had succeeded to the rights of Tehku to the exclusion of other brothers. 11. It has come on record that except the predecessor in interest of the appellant/defendants, other brothers of Baragi were in service. Their families were residing near the suit land, however only Baragi was present at the spot at the time of settlement, as such his name was only recorded. 12. Both the courts have correctly concurrently held that the suit filed does not suffer from the non-joinder of necessary party as once the tenancy of predecessor in interest Tehku is not disputed by the appellant/defendants, there is no requirement to implead the owners. The lis can be decided in the absence of the hitherto owners. Besides the aforesaid, the trial court has correctly clubbed inter-connected issues and decided them together. Moreover, the cause of action inter se the parties arose in the month of May 2011 and the suit was filed well within the period of limitation. i.e 2013. The Learned trial court while deciding the issue of limitation has appreciated the plea in its correct perspective in terms of the law/judgements referred thereto. No infirmity can be found on the said account. 13. In view of the aforesaid, there arises no question of law, much less a substantial question of law for the consideration of the Court. Thus, in the case at hand, I am of the opinion that both the Courts below have given well-reasoned judgments. The same do not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.